There's a number of ways to answer this and I'll defer to those who study history as a discipline but would offer our recent post on Women's History Month for some context. Especially this part:

"Placing Women in History: Definitions And Challenges” by Gerda Lerner arrived on the scene in 1975. Recognized as one of the foundational texts of a then-nascent branch of history known as “Women’s History”, she laid out how a consequence of traditional approaches to the historical record meant women often went unremarked on. Not that our words, labor, ideas, and work were unremarkable but that the men writing about history saw our presence as background noise to the “real” history their fellow men were making.

Lerner wasn’t the first to recognize it but articulated that when we envision the past as a place dominated by men, it’s that much harder to envision an equitable future. Since then, in ways big and small, historians of all genders have worked to push, prod, and encourage the field to approach the historical record in a more thoughtful, and more complete, way. With varying levels of success, they have helped their fellow historians move from framing women as someone’s wife, sister, mother, or daughter to attending to their full humanity, agency, and experiences.

The field of women's history reminds us that in order to tell the full story of the past, we need to consider the actions of all people. And the work truly means all - Women. Men. Nonbinary people. Girls. Trans women and men. Black, Indigenous, multiracial women. Women of color. White women. Women with developmental disabilities, women with physical disabilities. Women sex workers and women rulers. Everyone in between. All.

In other words, when we consider the field of historiography before the modern era, we're likely talking about a field where men were talking to men about words written by men they deemed sufficiently notable aka Great Men. (Eric Foner, a historian who studies political history, uses the question, "who owns history?" and explicitly identifies the role of White men.) Which isn't to say the history of the field wasn't shaped by women because it was, but rather, the field itself was shaped by the cultural conditions around it. And until recently, those conditions didn't value women's input in the way it valued men's. My particular field, education history, is frequently wrestling with this particular tension. It's field that is dominated by the work of women in the classroom but men in the offices and statehouses. Early historians of education focused explicitly on their fellow schoolmen and often ignored or minimized the words and thoughts of women teachers yet education historians today are working to go back and find the words and thoughts of those women who had to follow the policies set out by those schoolmen.

It's not about historiography per se, but I'm a big fan of Sarah Maza's "Thinking About History." She does a great job unpacking the role of evidence in history and helping the reader think about the historical record.